And at least one of them is a former GP champion
I suspect that Luthi might be suffering from 'nice guys don't finish first' syndrome at the moment. He seems to have let Marquez get under his skin.
Honda threatens to quit MotoGP
- Thread starter rossiofsky
- Start date
And at least one of them is a former GP champion
I suspect that Luthi might be suffering from 'nice guys don't finish first' syndrome at the moment. He seems to have let Marquez get under his skin.
I think we are talking two different things; The physical manufacture of the bike and the development of the bike.
One is relatively cheap, being casting, machining, wiring, composites, assembly, etc., the other is really, really expensive.
The other thing to take into account is the staff and facilities necessary to 'make' a GP bike. They don't have an unlimited number of engineers of the quality and skill necessary to machine and assemble and test a GP engine, for example, and for 6 riders, that equates to 36 engines a year, plus development and testing engines. Which is what sets some GP race factories apart from others - HRC have an immense facility and staff. But they also have to manage Trials, MX, Enduro, Endurance, 'retail', cars, buggies, boats, etc.
It is the intangibles that make the bikes so expensive - amortising all the myriad costs from drawing-board to racetrack. Apart from the CF and maybe some exotic metals (limited), there isn't much in it that makes it costly. Perhaps that's what he was getting at?
IIRC there are different 'flavours' of factory satellite bike - some, like Tech3, pay a flat fee for a basic lease of the bike, some like Gresini and LCR and Pramac, pay for a complete turnkey solution. That costs measurably more.
I disagree - the only way to go is to simplify - 1000cc, four stroke, minimum weight and that's your lot. How you achieve that is up to you. What we have at the moment is four manufacturers with exactly the same bike, all trying to find half a percentage point advantage over each other.
It's like the old adage about advertising - the most money spent is when there is almost nothing between the products - gas, ...., makeup, shampoo, washing powder, etc. It's the same with the current formula - the rules are so explicit and arcane and convoluted that it actually limits engineering smarts, so they are in an arms race to make their ECU 1% more efficient than the next guy. The costs go up drastically.
The alternative, a simple, impossible to cheat formula, would actually reward smart engineering. Instead of all of the teams spending $20M on a fancy new gearbox and ECU to try and arm-wrestle that winning 1% advantage, teams would look somewhere else - Tech3, for example, knows they can't compete in that arena, so they get creative and develop a completely new type of electronic suspension component that gives them a couple of tenths a lap advantage over Honda's gearbox. Budding inventors bring their cool new engine designs and test them in the crucible of the topmost level of two-wheeled motorsport.
Instead, we have 'prototypes' that are anything but. The only manufacturer that has shown the least innovation is Ducati, but thanks to the stupid fuel, tyre and engine regs, they are penalised because they didn't make an M1 or an RC.
We could have exciting prototype racing again. The reason 500GP was exciting wasn't because two-strokes were inherently 'better' than four stokes, but because a smart guy in your garage could take it to the big boys and win - because the rules were simple.
We could have that again. Just get rid of Dorna as anything other than the broadcast rights holder.
And there's the rub. One clause in the FIM's contract to sell the commercial rights of GP racing to Dorna was over the number of bikes on the grid - IIRC it was 16. If Dorna failed to achieve 16 starters over a certain period, the FIM could reclaim the series. So what was Dorna's answer to the decreasing number of teams able to afford to compete in their ever-changing land of rules? Change the rules to allow non-GP bikes to compete.
Why didn't they take it the whole way and just allow anything that met the basic weight, fuel, cc's? There would be a whole lot less bitching than there is now and we might actually see some interesting machines on the grid, instead of factory bikes and a bunch of cheap knock-offs.
There is an easier and much cheaper way - add 30kg to the minimum weight regs. Heavier bikes wouldn't be able to corner as fast and would negate the need for expensive composites and unobtanium metals. That would remove a huge advantage the current factories have over privateers.
Make it a damned sight cheaper for REAL prototypes to compete.
I think your wrong. HRC were going to get rid of him but i think reversed that decision because of pedrosa and repsol. If he didn't work for HRC then why is he always in there uniform and with the crew chief by pit wall? I thought Schwantz run the red bull rookies?
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
At one time he was crew chief for Dani's Repsol team, now he is just Dani's manager who is allowed to wear the uniform and hang in the pits like he is important
Those expensive metals go into the engines and they'd still be used, you need light engine internals to rev higher than the competition and it's why Dorna want a rev limit. You also need those exotic expensive metals to make an engine that will last as long as a GP engine needs to last. It takes a lot money to do these things and we don't have anyone but Honda, yamaha, and ducati that are willing to spend the money but those three can't get enough bikes on the grid. It's going to take some time to get more factories back in GP, but they are already seeing much more interest than what the 800cc era brought us. I suspect even more teams will be pulling out of WSBK to join GP.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
So you guys actually believe that the 1,000's are cheaper to develop than the 800's!!???
Get real.
Here's the figures:
cost 800's ..... whatever the manufacturer is willing to budget that year.
cost 1,000's ... whatever the manufacturer is willing to budget that year + CPI .........
Here's the figures:
cost 800's ..... whatever the manufacturer is willing to budget that year.
cost 1,000's ... whatever the manufacturer is willing to budget that year + CPI .........
So you guys actually believe that the 1,000's are cheaper to develop than the 800's!!???Get real.
Here's the figures:
cost 800's ..... whatever the manufacturer is willing to budget that year.
cost 1,000's ... whatever the manufacturer is willing to budget that year + CPI .........
How many factories, teams, tire suppliers, and sponsors left during the 800cc era?
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
How many factories have re-entered ?
How many tyre suppliers had a choice ?
Why type such drivel?
Instead of coming up with such crap, which is in itself based on pure falacy, try finding some actual facts and figures showing anything resembling a situation whereby 800's where more expensive.
What BM said.
Some of you people just either refuse to read what is written or lack the comprehension skills to understand it.
Most of the time I think it is just pure arrogance. Sitting up on your high horse passing judgement on what is said based simply on who the poster is.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
No doubt the 800 formula was a crap formula, but the litre bike formula now doesn't look much different. The problems are imo mainly the fuel limit and the control tyre rule; msma/honda can be blamed for the first but not the second which may have something to do with the demise of tyre suppliers (and a sponsor in michelin who were sponsoring tech 3) as has been suggested. Even with the fuel limit if michelin had been given another year to sort out how to make non-sns tyres things may have been better; admittedly they may have been unable to afford it. Even with michelin's woes I think having 2 tyre suppliers mixed things up more, particularly in 2007 when michelin had the better qualifiers and the advantage at some tracks. As it eventuated the control tyre favoured honda (in the 800s) and yamaha, disadvantaged ducati and contributed significantly to the demise of kawasaki and suzuki.
Joined May 2009
6K Posts | 4K+
Shovel's Club
You have to remember, Barry knows everything. Well except for being humble, he doesnt know .... about that.
How many factories have re-entered ?
How many tyre suppliers had a choice ?
Why type such drivel?
Instead of coming up with such crap, which is in itself based on pure falacy, try finding some actual facts and figures showing anything resembling a situation whereby 800's where more expensive.
I'll answer your question even though you couldn't answer mine because all you have is your typical BS
Let's see we'll start with the need to use pnuematic valves over regular springs.
Electronics, the 990s did have them but not anything close to what we have now
The biggest fact of all just look at the lease prices of the bikes and it's easy to see how much more expensive the 800s were, the price increased by a third to half depending on the bike. You couldn't be more full of .... Barry and the fact that you have Mental on your side is all the proof anyone needs to know you are wrong.
Hawk,
They went to pnuematic valves because Ducati had desmo and more HP. So are they still running pnuematic valves? So how does that work with your theory?
Guess what in 2006 my computer had a fraction of the power it has today. It is called advancement. Do you honestly believe that if the 990's were still in use today they would be running 2006 era electronics?
In 2006 electricity prices in Australia were about half what they are now. Most things have gone up in price. Not sure if you have noticed this but it has pretty much been happening like that for the last couple of hundred years. It is called capitalism and economic growth.
You say Barry and I are full of ..... Well you seem to be dribbling the brown stuff more than anyone.
Hope to god you never agree with me because then I know I will be wrong.
They went to pnuematic valves because Ducati had desmo and more HP. So are they still running pnuematic valves? So how does that work with your theory?
Guess what in 2006 my computer had a fraction of the power it has today. It is called advancement. Do you honestly believe that if the 990's were still in use today they would be running 2006 era electronics?
In 2006 electricity prices in Australia were about half what they are now. Most things have gone up in price. Not sure if you have noticed this but it has pretty much been happening like that for the last couple of hundred years. It is called capitalism and economic growth.
You say Barry and I are full of ..... Well you seem to be dribbling the brown stuff more than anyone.
Hope to god you never agree with me because then I know I will be wrong.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
Bingo, Bingo, and Bingo. These so called morally evolved elitist, dont seem to understand evolution.Weird!
